Saturday, April 28, 2012

Not everyone
knows that The Plague Court Murders,
Carter Dickson’s novel (John Dickson Carr) published in 1934, has a pretty
revealing subtitle: “A Chief Inspector Masters-Murders”. It means, that Carr at
first, probably, had decided to create a series of novels (including the
aforementioned novel would have been the first) not based on the character
of Merrivale but on Chief Inspector of
the CID, Masters. Besides the fact that in this first novel, Humphrey Masters
should have at first a much greater role than that of Henry Merrivale, it also
follows from the structure of the novel: it is much more Masters dropped into
the mystery, he is interrogate several witnesses including you find the
culprit, Merrivale and the same appears on the scene of the crime after at
least a good half of the book.
It would suffice, however, only the characterization of the character Merrivale
to understand even the most doubtful that, in this first novel in the series,
the figures of Merrivale and Fell, morphologically, are not very much
different. Carr, the beginning is not that he had already given a well-defined
characterization to his character. In contrast to Masters, which is presented
to the reader on two separate occasions: the first is when it is presented as a
hunter of fake mediums and false occult scholars saying that during the period of
spiritualistic mania that had invaded England after the end of the war, he was
a sergeant whose main task was to unmask the false medium, and that his
interest in these practices had never died out, so that he "had actually
turned into a hobby, by constructing sophisticated tricks and sleight of hand,
in the workshop of his house, "surrounded warm approval of the
children"; and the second is when it becomes a physical characterization
of Masters: tall and stout, expression inscrutable, wrapped in his dark overcoat
and a bowler hat to his chest as if he beheld “the passage of a procession”. To emphasize the fact that at the
beginning Carr (but not to inflate more his name, he adopted with all the
Merrivale novels in the series, the pseudonym Carter Dickson) had not fully
characterized the figure of Merrivale, you can see how the Old as it is also
called, was presented as a man of law, but also a doctor, and especially in the
early novels such as Head of the Military Intelligence Service (also known as
MI6), although, when it is presented for the first time, is said to be was
previously head of the Military Counterintelligence (also known as MI5). Being
at the head of "Intelligence" Military, could explain the title of
nobility that we often see prefixed to his name: Sir, though in his case the
noble title is not acquired as a function of its operational excellence rather
than by descent.

Conan
Doyle's influence on Carr is detectable, in many cases: in the case of the
duality Bencolin investigation, represented by Holmes and Watson, is masked and
not clearly visible and if anything it is only understandable in the pair
Bencolin and Jeff Marle, in two other major series, those of Dr. Fell and HM,
the influence is much more visible, if not canonical. In fact, Dr. Fell is
apparently opposite, but in reality it goes, the Inspector Hadley, and if HM in
a sense embodies Holmes, Dr. Watson is represented by the unfortunate (which
makes tenderness in some way) Master Chief Inspector. That seems to me to
identify one of the most characteristic and brilliant of Carr’s writing: the characterization
of the characters. Since it is an indisputable fact, that the pair of
investigators, but in general the pair of players, attract most of the
individual (Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy, Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers;
Starsky & Hutch, etc..), Carr invented the characters , we can say that
he has often used them. Although it’s undeniable
that the shoulder reinforcements support and finish to put under the spotlight
the protagonist, the deus ex machina of the novel, it is also undeniably true
that the “shoulder”, when it is broken so as to soften, become very sympathetic
to readers, because in some way all of them tend to identify with him. Indeed,
in this case, Masters becomes, with his bad luck to run into impossible crimes
and locked rooms, a character almost more fun than the same HM looks. The fact isthat bothappearin ThePlagueCourtMurdersand theircombinationwill featurethe best ofCarterDickson’s production.

The first of the novels in the series, sees the entrance of HM not at the
beginning but when the crime has already consumed: in fact the entrance of HM
follows the lines of an entry into the scene with great fanfare of the
protagonist, such as during a theater play, after a sort of introduction, here
represented by everything that happens before HM appears on the scene to solve
the riddle. And H.M. appears for the first time just because Major Featherton
think about it, by contacting Ken Blake (who is the narrator), to put the
investigation in the hands of that who is, a true expert, in the hands of Henry
Merrivale. And by doing so Carr speaks for the first time about Merrivale, and
does so, looking at Fell: garrulous, always lazy, lawyer and physician, vain,
fat jokes and talk about pressures.

The investigation concerns a supernatural story from surveys, that of a
dwelling, a bit far-fetched in London in the '30s (but often Carr knows how to
make plausible situations that at the hands of others would laugh chickens),
which says hotels a ghost, that of Louis Playge Executioner: it’s Plague Court,
originally the seat of a tribunal. This home is owned by Dean Halliday and his
family. Halliday has called on stage Ken Blake, his old friend, to preside at a
seance, which will evoke the restless spirit of the Executioner, because you
find peace, to manage the session will be a student of the occult sciences,
Professor Roger Darworth, and Joseph Dennis the medium. In fact, the spirit is
one of those wicked and devilishly clever, and could take over the body of a
certain person to make him do what he wants: Plague in fact life was not only
the executioner for activities, but also to the vocation took pleasure in
hurting . So he had become the terror of those who were near; until the plague pecked
too him, like all his countrymen. His brother, drove him from home, and the
executioner, before dying, threw a curse on that house.

On the site of the seance there is also the Chief Inspector Humphrey
Masters, whose presence is explained by the unusual fact that Darworth
suspected of being a fraud, a fake scholar of the occult. The night of the
séance, Darworth closes himself in Plague Court, while the séance proceeds, and
there he is killed.The fact is that crime is a classic Locked Room: in fact
the door is closed and locked from the inside and the windows also, to
complicate the story is the fact that Darworth was stabbed with the dagger that
had been used originally by Executioner, and around the little stone house is
an expanse of mud, where there aren’t footprints: it would therefore appear
that the supernatural is the only possible track. In fact there would be a
centenary tree, with its branches reaches the roof of the house, but its wood is
so addled, that would not hold the weight of any person who climbed up there,
as evidenced by good police Sergeant Bert McDonnell.

The protagonists of this drama, that is, Lady Benning, Marion Latimer, his
brother Ted Latimer, and Major Featherton, astonished and frightened to attend
events, the more that comes a cat found with his throat cut and a large stone
vase is launched overhand: these facts show that all the spirits in place does
not grant to any discounts of any kind.

At this point, and here ends the introduction to drama, enters H.M. It is a
dramatic entrance. H.M. is presented as a bald, fat, smoking bad cigars (which
Carr model runs is Winston Churchill), who prefers to wear hats of any kind,
that is not taller than five feet seven, and always wears white socks, and who
knows an industrial quantity of dirty jokes. From this point, Merrivale will remain until the end. But not before he had probed
the past Darworth, because that's where you hide the origin of the drama, and
that a second crime, even more terrible than the first, upset everyone will be
killed Joseph, medium, Darworth mate. Not just killed, but also full of petrol
and thrown into the boiler of a house. The explanation of Merrivale, a real
masterpiece, will leave everyone with his mouth open.

Actually, as any first novel, this one is structured almost like the first
and only, or that the same Carr hadn’t clear ideas on the continuation of the
series: in fact, not only the fact that, after almost 150 pages , Merrivale
appears in the novel, is a test of a different construction gained during the
course of the novel, but especially that mysterious expression which appears after
Merrivale’s apparition and about it you can not find any next justification.
Why Carr feels the need to say that you are violating the rules of the
detective story? And why right after he says that the person who premeditated
the murder, she conceived just as a detective story?In my opinion, is the affirmation of who (precisely Carr),
not knowing yet whether the smile on the success or otherwise after the
publication of this novel, claiming for himself the authorship of to have
created a perfect novel, maybe the solution to most brilliant moment he had
thought: who could premeditate a crime, conceiving it as if you were writing a
detective novel, if not a writer of detective novels, and particularly one who
wrote the novel in which we find these reflections? Only a writer who sets up
the plot, and invent an ingenious crime
that works on paper and of which he, speaking by the mouth of Henry Merrivale,
can reveal the explanation, could premeditate the crime, and he should conceive
it in a frame mystery novel.In short, John Dickson Carr could do it, only!Because, despite the explanation leaves at open mouth, this
is one of the many crimes whose explanation can be accepted only in the pages
of the greatest inventor of locked rooms, in a literary context and invention,
taken to the maximum expression.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Philip MacDonald : Murder Gone Mad, 1931.

When you speak
about great writers of detective novels, generally you speak about the great
triad - Carr, Christie, Queen - forgetting many other names, sibling, if not
quantitatively, at least qualitatively. Among
these others, there are what I call the "innovators", the writers who
have innovated the genre, not at the variation of plot, but at the invention of
a different narrative structure. Among
the innovators, securely I must remember Philip MacDonald, english writer..

He
was definitely one of the most important writers of the twentieth century
detective: I would say that of his production many are masterpieces, worthy to
be authoritative in any ranking of the best novels of all time: The Rasp, The Noose, The Link, Rynox, The
Choice, Murder Gone Mad, The Maze, The List of Adrian Messenger , X v. Rex (aka: Martin
Porlock). Why? Because
he has got ever originality and almost every time he writes a novel, makes some
surprising stylistic changes to the whodunnit: writing a novel about the serial
killings, Murder Gone Mad, he met a
huge success and it was repeated with another on a more series
of crimes committed by a killer, X v. Rex; he subverted the rules of the
English whodunnit in The Maze; I didn’t
introduce the murderer in the Warrant for
X; in Rynox, he began with the
epilogue; still in seventies,
Barzun and Taylor described The Rasp, a "epochmaking": in
it was all: the murder of a head of state, clues, extraordinary ambience and
atmosphere and a variety of psychological thrill.

Our novel is of
1931. John
Dickson Carr, who at first was called The
Rasp, the debut novel of the Colonel Anthony Gethryn, “one of the ten
greatest detective novels”, he later replaced it with The Murder Gone Mad, to enshrine the importance that " The Murder Gone Mad " has and that
was already recognized eighty years ago.The
novel is a precursor, one of the first to talk about serial killings, in a time
when The ABC Murders of Agatha Christie was yet to come: a
novel counter, whose mere mention would be enough to erase all an annoying
literary criticism, which tends to frame the Mystery as a genre dead and
buried, unable to generate tension, and prepending to it a paraliterature; forgetting
that the serial murder genre was born with Steeman and MacDonald. But
if Steeman, with "The démon de Sainte-Croix" opens the strand talking
about a series of crimes apparently disconnected and then that prove joined by
a particular truly surprising, and if Christie christen the murder multiple
that must conceal in the series apparently disconnected
interest to a single murder (as if concealing something from other things like
that and putting everything under the sun becomes it unknowable), Philip
MacDonald provides to exaggerate the genre. In
fact, for the first time ever, we see a litany of murderers, quite disconnected
from each other, can be associated only in the unknowable depths of a sick mind
who likes to kill for the sake of it, keeping police at bay .

So slowly, then
more quickly we witness the horrible business of "The Butcher", the
psychopathic murderer that, in the charming town of Holmdale, a few miles from
London, sowing chaos is the discovery of the bodies, all killed with
a bloody same technique (using a sharp knife blows, usually to the stomach), to
dictate the pace, and especially through authorship of the letters to the
police, the pathos and tension. Thus,
where in many other examples of contemporary thriller, the tension is
crystallized in literary devices, for example in the construction of floors and
temporal narrative that often run in parallel and then intersect (for example
the Lee & Child’s novels starring Aloysious Pendergast), here the tension
is a characteristic of wisdom literature that articulates the writer with a
relentless procession of the deads, before with frustrating attempts , then
more more
specific and more selective for identification of the murderer, with the
growing dissatisfaction of the public, represented by newspapers, politicians,
and less and less popular demonstrations peaceful, and the sardonic safety sported
by the murderer in mock
and ridicule of established even in charge of the investigation, Arnold Pike,
superintendent of Scotland Yard, which, like a bloodhound, regardless of the
tricks of the murderer and reproaches of his superiors, leads his investigation
made by attempts, each one different, but always more effective to end once and
for all the carnage. So
to mark the time of novel are more extensive tables that contain the likely
suspects. As
a corollary, a series of unlikely assassins arrested: the boeotian, the
director, the famous doctor.Without
doubt the most curious and interesting history, is that a procedural analysis
of the survey, lack any evidence that in an usual survey that was based on
abduction of Sherlock Holmes, should abound: instead they roam here. In
the painful deaths (Lionel Colby, promising young man, from middle class family; Pamela Richards, rich
bourgeoisie; Amy Adams, bartender, working class; Albert Rogers, skilled
worker, about to become a soccer player; Marjorie Williams, nurse),
relentless and ferocious in its impartiality, as if death is common to all, a
"leveling" relentless, you do not see nothing but the absence of any
motive: unknown to each other, elements taken at random, whose unique
common reasons are the horrible gash in the belly and enjoy the chilling of the
murderer about the death of one and about the pain of those who loved this
victim. The
killer comes even to send a letter to the police, promising that he will hit on
December 7, this time enjoy pain just of Pike who finds the mother of a girl
with which he enjoyed playing with the train, Molly Brade, curled up next to a
wall and behind the
chair where he sleeps unaware her daughter Millicent.

She
will bethe last to fall.AfterPike will ariive briskly, with aseries
ofinsightson how to proceed,
that have nothingto do withnormalinvestigativeinquiries,
as here, there is no evidencethat helpsto discoverthekiller. He is discoveredbecause Pikeis increasingly resortingto the help ofimprovisedmeans of investigation: reflectorslocatedinthetown, they will turn onrandomlyilluminatingdifferent
partsof the city;lightsthat are litin the post officewhere theyellow envelopeswith theoffendingobliqueblackhandwriting, arewrappedand thenfall directlyon thetable in front ofemployees andpolicemans; cameras, as cameras aretoday, they control the variousstreetsof
the city ..But ArnoldPike,
with an ideaas old as theworld, he will manage toreveal thetrue identityof the murderer: creatinga falsebutchereager
totakethe fameof the realandthe
true is inducednotto resist thetemptation tosee whohasthe willto emulate himselfAndso from an
entire citysifted, he will lead to
narrowthe gridof the suspectsinonly4suspects,one of whichnecessarilywill be "The Butcher".
Butthe truthwill
surpriseall.Becauseonce the killer will be again the leastsuspected, and the weapon..the leastsuspected.

A novel inconclusion, of adisarminglymodernity,
that in the absenceof any indicationenlightening andramblinginthe theoryofserialmurder victims, clearlydoes justiceto
the titleMurderGoneMad.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Bill Pronzini-Barry N. Malzberg : The
Running of Beasts, 1976

I must admit that
if I didn’t buy and if I didn’t read detective stories for sale two months ago, in
italian newspaper stands, I never knew who was Barry N. Malzberg. The other author, in
return, yes I know! And
who doesn’t know Bill Pronzini?Mauro
Boncompagni, who signed the notes in the afterword, largely about the two writers
spokes, and cites facts and circumstances which, as he told me in private, has
been told by two authors: he knows both
but Bill Pronzini least I know for sure. The result is a
vivid and fascinating portrait. I
do not deny that, thanks to Mauro notes (that I know myself well enough), I
would have wanted to read the essay by Malzberg on Cornell Woolrich: Mauro
speaks of it as the best piece ever written on Woolrich.

The novel in question
is The Running of Beasts. It 'a thriller and it's
raining there. But it is
not just a thriller, is a masterpiece of a thriller.The
story itself isn’t very original: in an U.S. citizen there is a series of
deaths: three women were killed, and disembowelled. A
psychiatrist, Dr. Ferrara, thinks that the murderess is a schizophrenic with
multiple personalities: in other words, someone who kills perhaps not even then
knowing that I did, or remembering fragments of memory that can not properly
fix in his mind.

The
fact isthat fivepeople wantfor
its own reasons, get your hands onthe murderer:

DanielSmith, astate policelieutenant,
StevenHook, a former alcoholicactor, JackCross, a journalist rampant; Keller, alocal policeman, ValeriaBroome, knownjournalist whowas bornin the town. The factis
that, if attentionisfocusedpreciselyon
thesepeople, it’s becauseobviouslyone of themis themurderer. Already
in this, the twoauthorsdivergefrom the usualsurvey:
you wouldnormallyhave had to comegradually to five suspects.But here, the five actorsarealready on the scenefrom the veryfirstpages:
they are presentedindividually, in theirstories, in theirweaknessesand in theiraspirations.And almost immediatelythe fivebegin tobe attracted toeach other: Cook falls in love (paid) with ValeriaBroome, Kellerbeginsto suspectCook, but
morebiasthan forconviction basedon evidence, and Smithbeginshis duelwithKeller. This in his turn hidesthe skeletonsin the closet: he killed a demonstratormany yearsbefore for "excess of zeal" if not "violence" and then hepreferred to take refugein thequiet town ofBloodstonetorebuild its reputation. Bloodstone, which strangename, it has : the bloodrecalls. Butis not the onlystrange thing.I say no more.

The fact is that
after a while the current deaths perk: there is an attempt of murder (odd), a
strange sight, and then two killings, even with the same features: two women
disembowelled, and then cut with a diamond-shaped a knife on her thigh.What
you notice is the way to accentuate the tension: the actors are presented
individually in great detail, the amount of space of characters is not
secondary : in fact the rate is exactly given by the progressive decrease of
the space given to each character in the book. First
large, then - gradually - increasingly restricted, the character whose turn is
appointed, does something and immediately the action and the attention of the
two authors go on another. And
all of this, according to the flow of a chain of events, the one after the
other, the one resulting from another, perhaps that seemed unconnected, but
then slowly tend to develop in a predetermined order, that given by the
suspicion which
tends to materialize at a certain point. And
the tension becomes frantic when paragraphs, each devoted to a different
character, they become almost like flashbacks.But is he really the
murderess? This is the point.Because
Pronzini and Malzberg tend, when they point to the reflector, to take a step
back and say that maybe the spotlight should have been focused on another. In short, everything and its
opposite. And
when the test is given, and the killer is located, and hunting seems to end,
with a change of scene really amazing, the killer is identified in another. That
would seem to have understood that he was the killer (the famous multiple
personality), and dies. All gone? No.
Because with a double final, the two writers show once again that you should
never trust appearances. The
fact is that "The end" of the novel is really surprising, as an
ending of a novel by F. Brown
or Thomas Harris almost. The true ending will remain on
the stomach.What
I like to emphasize is the so-called stylistic mimesis Pronzini & Malzberg
take: when identifying the murderess (which is true) underestimate him, present
him with words and descriptions that tend to corroborate the fact that the
murderer can not be him, despite the overwhelming evidence against him would
seem. It seems
almost a conviction sub-liminal. And
when they point the spotlight on the fake murderess, present it in such a way
that the reader becomes convinced that he is the murderer and not others. The
operation of mimesis is needed to prepare the surprise ending, which would not
have the force of a punch in the stomach, if you do not give for granted that
the murderess had already left the scene.

Finally
I would like to recall that Bill Pronzini and Barry Malzberg must have at least
watched "Murder Gone Mad" by Philip MacDonald: the same journalist
recalls other journalist who was there, but she hasn’t the same function and
the same role, and if the atmosphere is rarefied in
both the novels and the victims are killed under cover of darkness, is also to
say that MacDonald generates power only with the atmosphere (like the great
masters of the past, for example Connington or Rinehart and Rufus King), while
two writers also resort to stylistic and technical processes. It
is also to indicate the ability of visionary Malzberg (well highlighted by
Boncompagni in afterword) that more than one occasion, with its baroque
descriptions, convinces the reader of the insanity of the murderer.An extraordinary thriller.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Agatha Christie : Curtain – Poirot’s Last
Case, 1975

Styles Court
always had a certain importance for Agatha Christie.

Witness the set having 2 important novels in his writing career: The misterious
affair at Styles, his debut as a writer's career (1920), in addition to the
character that made universally famous, Monsieur Hercule Poirot, the Belgian
detective; Curtain - Poirot's Last Case (1975), Poirot novel farewell.

Curtain - Poirot's Last Case begins when the first was over to Styles Court.
Now Cavendish has become the home of a pension, and Poirot has a room for rent.
He is worn out by arthritis, and lives in practice on a wheelchair. But Poirot
to Styles is not out of nostalgia, but to prevent a murderess to continue to
kill, as he wrote to his old friend Hastings. The show, alone, amazing
coincidences, events which, taken individually, are of no value, and then,
however, compared to each other and respect each and every one under certain
circumstances, take on sinister side dishes.

In other words ... there was a very strange series of deaths.

Leonard Etherington, dead apparently rotten food, after the autopsy was
discovered to be killed with rat poison with arsenic. Accused wife, she had
been acquitted. However the general opinion was unfavorable, and two years
after the trial, had committed suicide with barbiturates.

Miss Sharples: died from an overdose of morphine. Insufficiency of evidence
against the nephew, Clay Freda.

Ben Craig: Mrs. Riggs assassinated along with a gun belonging to her husband,
Edward Riggs, jealous of the relationship between the two. Riggs was sentenced
to life imprisonment, after being sentenced to death.

Derek Bradley threatened by his wife for his affair with a girl, was killed
with potassium cyanide dissolved in beer. His wife was sentenced to death and
hanged.

Matthew Litchfield tyrannical father of four daughters, killed by his eldest
daughter Margaret, who would thus allow the sisters to start a new life: interned
at Broadmoor because she was incapable of consent, there she was dead then.

Cases
that do notappear to havehadanythingin common, toomanyto suggesta common matrix, identifiedonly byPoirot.
Mr.Xis the
common denominatorof all cases. He
toois inStylesCourt, becamea
separateboard. AndPoirotis there.

Hefeels compelledto take action, because he suspects, based onallexistingconnections, anothermurderis about totake
place atStylesCourt, wherefifty yearsearlier, had beenkilledEmilyInglethorp.

GeorgeLuttrell, retired
colonelis the newowner ofStylesCourt. Headministers thepension andlives therewith his wifeDaisy. Guestsof theboard,andso
essentiallycharacters in the novel, as well asPoirot, are,at the time whenHastingsarrives withhis daughterJudith, SirWilliamBoydCarrington, StephenNorton, ElizabethCole, JohnFranklin,
the scientist (whohasa laboratory)and his
wifeBarbara, the waiterPoirot, Curtiss, and
MissCafresnurse. Allthe characters, more or less,will havea rolein the drama. Betweentheseliesthemurderess, Mr.X,
and his victim.

Poirotwould savethesacrificial lamb, who
does not knowwho he is,and as
suchseeks thehelp ofHastings, who ran,together
with his daughter, in aid of his friend.Butsoonthere will be
ahomicide,based on thejudgment ofPoirotthat
ifone swallow does notmake a
summer, a murderessmakesa crimeinstead. Butfirstthere will be afailed attemptto killthe
wifeof ColonelLuttrell:
he shoots to arabbit anda bulletgrazeshis
wife.

The fact isthat, aftera deathoccurs: Mrs.Franklinispoisonedwith alethal dose ofphysostigminesulfate. The
doseis from thelaboratoryof her husband, of which both as he as
the assistant have a key. Itclarifiesthat the victimsuffered fromdepression,and there's more toan eye witnessabove
allsuspicion thathe swearsto have seencome outclutchingabottle: he
isHerculePoirot. Theinvestigationof
thecoroner'sverdictwassuicide. ButPoirothasreallyseenwhat he hasconfessed?
Heknowsthat thewoman wasmurdered, but since it has no evidenceofX is the murderer, Poirot makesthe investigation isclosedso thathe andHastingsarefree to work"undercover", we would say today.
Moreover, he confessesthat hetestified, but "not under oath."

Hastingsis afraidthat something elsewill happen. In fact,a second murderoccurs, and this timeunder
impossible conditions: Nortonisfound with abullet infront ofher room, locked
from the inside, and the keyisfoundinthepocket of hisrobe, once thedoor is forced.The windowwasfoundlocked from inside. This can only besuicide.

Then, fourmonths aftera letter deliveredtoHastingswill explaineverything: howarethe threedeathsoccurred, as therewas anattempted murder, but two, as until to murder ofFranklin, there were twomurders andarealpotential. Afterthe
murderof Franklin, there were a
potentialmurdererand tworeal. Afterthe
murder ofNorton, there were two
killers. After the death ofPoirot,
onlyamurderer
there was. However, he isn’t X but…

I do not knowhowothers think, but I thinktheQueenhadread and enjoyedThemisteriousaffairatStyles,
when they wroteTheSiameseTwinsMystery.
AgathaChristie wasinfactthe story of
twobrothersand astepmother, whowasthenremarried to ayounger man, and murderher,of
which he isfalsely accusedone
of the brothers, theQueen,
the story ofmurdereda surgeon, and2twin brothersarefalselysuspected. In
bothcome into the picturetwo
possiblemurders ofspouses.

But, then, just asChristiewouldprobablyhave readthe worksofQueen. Forthe last fourwords of the novel, Mark ofCain, werefertoElleryQueen, to many of hisworks: theradio playThe AdventureOf TheMark ofCain, thenovel TheKingis
Dead, a chapterof "Once
Was aWoman",which is called"The
Mark of Cain". butat the same"The SiameseTwinMystery"
to "X."

Xrefers usto Dr.Xavier, but
also to twice. AJanus-faced:
and this, Curtain-ThePoirot's
Last Case, isanother novelon the double, we could saythe novelon doubleChristie's:
because thereare fourmurders, and thesefouruntil the enddoes notseemso.Onehas neverkilled, butkilledmany, and another killedoneout of
necessity, to save lives, buthas not beenindictedevenpraised, and nowkillsstillneedtosave lives, but
no onewould think thatkilledand anotherstill kills, but does not knowwho killed, and the fourth, which wouldkill another, ends upa
mistake, not his,..to killhimself.

We couldcall it, as for Ellery Queen, a
"Tragedy of Errors". Itcertainlyseemsthatthose who readthe novel, becausemuch morehappens,
and in thismuch, manyothererrors andmisunderstandingsand characteristic behaviors , that are explainedin thecatharticfinal. Among
thebehaviorswe point out,
the "strange" resumethe limp of Poirot, who
limpsas fiftyyears before.

Thelimpentersby force infinal explanation.

Whyto StylesCourt,
Christie decided tosethis first andhis lastnovel
in theseries ofPoirot? I do not know, but certainlyStylesCourt, had toplay in theChristiealmost asymbolic value: there hebeganhis
fortune, therehad to end.

Few people knowthat whenshe wrote her firstPoirot, the house where she livedwith her husband, ColonelChristie, was calledStyles, in Sunningdale,
Berkshire. And fromthehouse beforeher husbandwent awayin 1926statingthat he hada lover, thensheran away(the famousescape andtemporary disappearance).

Personal Informations

I am Italian. Once I was reporter, of classical music. Since several years I collaborate with "Il Blog del Giallo Mondadori".
I wrote a lot of stories ( 1 Locked Room Novel also and 1 Locked Room
long tale, both not yet published) almost all "Locked Rooms", readable
on Sherlock Magazine Web site, among which Queen and Rawson apocryphal,
while 3 S.Holmes apocryphal have been published in paper form.
I wrote essays about E.Queen, R.King, Carr, Berkeley, Aveline,
E.d'Errico, S.S.Van Dine, N.Marsh, C.Brand, A.Christie, M.Allingham,
etc..on the blogs: "Il Giallo Mondadori", "La Morte Sa Leggere", and on
sites web: "Sherlock Holmes Magazine" and "EuroPolar".
On italian Mondadori's Blog Giallo, I wrote a history of Locked-Room
Lectures in three parts ( a fourth part is in preparation). Coming soon a my new short story, a classical locked room, will be published from an important american publishing house.I own five blogs about Crime fiction (3 at italian language and 2 at english language) and 1 of Classical Music.